Classical philosophy and Darwinian biology are far more compatible than is usually assumed. In fact, looking at either from the standpoint of the other can enrich and deepen our appreciation of both. From a Darwinian point of view, the theories of Plato and Aristotle deserve to be taken very seriously. From the classical point of view, Darwinian biology is much less reductionist than its enemies suppose.

Friday, May 19, 2017

Aristophanes on the Family

Here’s a chicken and egg problem:
what comes first, the family or the political community? This is one of the
questions I have been working on. I
presented a paper on the subject in Vancouver and I will present a more
elaborate version of the same this fall in San Francisco.

Aristotle supposed that the
family is more natural than the polis, for human beings are more a coupling
animal than a political animal. An
alternative view is presented by Socrates’ greatest critic, Aristophanes. In his best play (by my judgment and his) the
Clouds, Strepsiades has gone into debt
because of his son’s love of horse racing.
The father comes up with a desperate solution: send his son,
Pheidippides, to study with Socrates.
The philosophers, he hears, can win any argument and someone with that
power can defend him in court against his creditors.

He wants his son to go learn this
art but Pheidippides refuses. Strepsiades
goes himself. Socrates’ curriculum
consists of two parts. One is the
rejection of the traditional Athenian gods.
The second is a rigorously scientific account of language and
nature. Strepsiades flunks out because
he cannot grasp the second part but he leaves having learned well the first
part. More desperate than ever, he
forces his son to enter Socrates’ school.
Pheidippides is the better learner.

After his son graduates,
Strepsiades thinks he has a get out of jail free card. When his creditors show up for their money,
he abuses them and sends them packing.
The moment of triumph is short lived.
When father and son quarrel over an obscene bit of poetry (involving incest
between a brother and sister) Pheidippides physically assaults his father. Strepsiades runs out of the house screaming
for his kinsmen and neighbors to defend him, but no one comes. His contempt of the gods and of the laws has
effectively broken the social contract.

Pheidippides offers to
demonstrate to his father than his actions are just. If a father can spank his son it is because
the father is wiser, right? So, if the
son becomes wiser can he not return the favor?
Strepsiades is stopped short by this.
As distressing as his situation is, he can see the reason in his son’s
words. Then Pheidippides goes too
far. He says he can beat his mother
too.

At that point, Strepsiades
explodes. For the first time, he gets to
the point before anyone else. If a son
can take liberties with his father because wisdom is the only basis of
authority, that is one thing. If he can
take liberties with his mother… the
horror, the horror. Strepsiades calls
the gods to his side and goes to burn down Socrates’ house.

I submit that the Clouds is a profound reflection on both
philosophy and the family. Human
communities, both the familial and the larger political one, are grounded in
cherished opinions about the gods and morality.
Philosophy is the attempt to replace opinions about the most important
things with knowledge. There is no
guarantee that the knowledge that the philosopher seeks will support, rather
than undermine, the familial and political bonds. Thus, philosophy is potentially subversive of
everything the father and citizen holds dear.

Aristophanes’ genius here was to
recognize that the family depended on the polis. The authority of the parent may make sense on
the grounds that adults know better than children what is good for the latter;
however, the authority of the parent relies heavily on the fact that the parent
is larger and stronger than the child.
As the son grows bigger and stronger, the father will have to rely on
the community to preserve his authority should the son challenge it.

In Aristophanes’ account, the
political community is more fundamental than the family. The latter can exist only so long as the
community supports and enforces its taboos.
I think that this is correct. Human
beings are, as Aristotle said, coupling creatures. The natural instinct of the male is to come
together with the female. It is not
that, however, that makes a family. For
the familial community to be sound, the father must have some reason to believe
that these children are his children.
For that, he must have some exclusive claim on his mate. To understand the family, one must understand
the political community that enforces these claims.